Einstein isn't God, people.
In any case, the article uses a very interesting device of cycling attribution. At anyone point in the article, it is tough to figure out who is saying what. This is what I unravelled it into.
1. A group of US scientists send light pulse FTL - though it depends on what you think of as light. Thornhill neglects to mention that these scientists themselves believe that it would be impossible to send information FTL by this method, which is corroborated by experiments.
2. A separate, unnamed group of Italian scientists also did this, though they believe that they may be able to send info FTL. This is linked to Dr Nimitz, who believes that the infomation can be sent FTL, but interpretation would take more time, so that the information is not sent FTL at all!
3. Experiments in quantum mechanics are mentioned. But entanglement is not sending information in the copenhagen interpretation. It is rolling remotely a randomising dice. Quantum tunneling, too, is understood under the quantum paradigm, and the results show that, ultimately, the light barrier is kept.
4. Sansbury apparently has his theorem. But it does seems rather redundant. The modern conception of light is not by Einstein, but by Quantum Electrodynamics. In this, all the weird stuff makes sense.
And threaded around this is Thornhill's own torturous path. Thornhill asserts, implausibly, that discarding Relativity entirely is required by Occam's razor. Thornhill uses weasel words to imply that the great magi in charge of science are crushing people beneath its inevitably jackbooted heels. Thornhill insists, in the absence of evidence, that experiments are wrong, but only wrong in that they do not fulfil his assertions. Thornhill creates an artificial problem that has not yet arisen, and then solves it himself. Thornhill gives arguments from his own ignorance, and makes arguments based on papers which conveniently no one has seen. Thornhill misunderstand the modern conception of particles/waves and believes that a news article's linguistics disproves modern physics.
Biggest folly? Thornhill believes that a conception of force based on Newton, an idea of vaguely worded influences with no statement on transmission or how they act, is a better explanation than the mechanisms which modern physics are starting to unravel.
